Japanese Tunic - What type?

[bestmsdt]

Just got this today. Supposed to be a bring back from Burma by a British serviceman there at the end of the war and after - but I know, 'buy the object not the story!' What type is this?
Think it's been issued. Frustratingly the branch depot is just not quite readable. I can see it's 1945.
Cheers,
Tony

[Nick Komiya]

That is a Type 3 Army uniform introduced in 1943. It is almost identical in design to the Type 98, but had some simplified features, the most notable being the reduction of number of sizes to only 3 instead of 6 sizes. Your's seems to be marked large,according to the 3 size system.

[ghp95134]

Nick has a very helpful thread pinned at WAF about clothing stamps wherein he lists six inspection depots (I saw one yesterday with 満 for Manchuria that is not yet listed). Amongst the depots Nick lists, I think the Hiroshima 廣 depot stamp MIGHT be your stamp. The kanji for Hiro 廣 consists of 15 strokes -- I think I can see the 1st, 14th & 15th strokes (merely a dot on top and two "legs" on the bottom).

Again, just a guess; but the other five depots do not have those particular strokes I mentioned .... except for 本廠 -- but I've only seen the first kanji stamped, not the second (... but I'm merely a novice).

Oh, I did manipulate the shades and colors to find an optimal read .... but little luck.


--Guy

[bestmsdt]

Thanks Guy for persevering with the markings! Looking at the jacket just, there does seem to be something fussy going on in the middle of the first character, so Hiroshima seems a reasonable bet. I am not sure that the more significant ink mark at the top might not be part of the third stroke (?), the horizontal.
Nick, my other post is a Type 3 from 1944, and like your picture has 4 front pockets whereas this one has only 2. Also the material seems lighter (in weight), though I can compare better this weekend when I will have access to both.
Cheers,
Tony

[Nick Komiya]

I assumed the lower pocket flaps were merely not showing up in the photo, but if you say they are totally absent, it means it is a late variant Type 3. The lighter material also confirms it to be a last ditch type. Your uniform is actually a compound of two regulation changes to the Type 3 uniform, introduced as temporary wartime contingencies.

On 1st December 1944 cutback measures on all army uniforms, including field caps were announced and this included the omission of waist pockets from the Type 3. (Edict 652). Pocket flaps were also to be simple triangular cut.

Further to the above, on 22nd June 1945, another cutback measure was introduced by edict, in which use of material for civilian uniforms (including buttons) was extended to army winter and summer uniforms. (Edict 384).

I should add that the 1944 regulation change also allowed issuing of civilian cut uniforms in the army, not only use of the material. There actually was a discussion whether army uniforms needed to be issued at all when recruits already came in the civilian uniforms, but they refrained from changing the law that stipulated the army will issue all requirements of a soldier. The civilian uniforms when issued by the army were to be limited to work, drill and barracks use.

[bestmsdt]

Thanks Nick; here's a (poor) close up of the buttons, which are different to the ones on my 1944 Type 3:

[Nick Komiya]

As mentioned, the jacket you show here is also still a Type 3, as the 2 changes were only temporary and the plan was to go back to the full Type 3 configuration when material supplies allowed. Some other simplifications introduced in December 1944 were----
-Omission of center seam in back
-Omission of side slits
-Shorter height ("to end 10 cm past the top edge of pelvis")

The overall concept was similar to the German M44 uniform.

[ghp95134]

...Shorter height ("to end 10 cm past the top edge of pelvis")

The overall concept was similar to the German M44 uniform.

Nick,

I recall reading that a tailor designed the shorter jacket with the concept of making the German soldier look taller; or, the overall design effectively made the soldier look taller.

Have you heard that explanation?

Thanks,
--Guy

[Nick Komiya]

Never heard that one before, Guy. Frederick the Great had a thing for tall soldiers, so I can believe something like that said for Prussian uniforms, but the M44 Feldbluse is normally explained within the context of the war economy, combined with a possible influence of the British Battle dress.

On the other hand, the Germans did seem to believe that shorter jackets were fashionable and it was extremely common to shorten the 4 pocket jackets and even the already short Panzer jacket.

By the way, beware of the name 丹下左膳 appearing on a flag you looked at this week. That's like Joe Friday's friend in Wonderland. A Japanese will just laugh at the flag.

[ghp95134]

...
By the way, beware of the name 丹下左膳 appearing on a flag you looked at this week. That's like Joe Friday's friend in Wonderland. A Japanese will just laugh at the flag.

Thanks for the heads-up.

--Guy

[Edit: I just updated that thread to warn the owner.]